It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptics seem to rely on FAITH for Flight 93 buried claim

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
radek..

You really can be rather nasty eh??Dont worry...I have thick skin...be as nasty as you like!!

I sense you are rattled..big time...your world is crumbling before your eyes...you hate to be wrong afterall!!


For those who have read Gens posts I would like to point out one, yes only one thing....

Gen...
Youve spoken with gusto about the debris being dispersed 8 miles or so across Shanksville that fateful murderous day.
You are adamant that the resultant fireball, which only you have the capacity to comprehend , was soooo forceful and of such intensity that it was capable of magically transporting all your alleged "light debris" the 8 miles mentioned earlier...



Well, i gave this some thought mate, what you said, and honestly tried to see it from your point of view...

Whilst difficult, i persevered, and tried to think like you...
Know what??
I couldnt...because the multiple loose ends to the "official word" that you support just dont make sense...

Now, no, i dont profess to know more than your mates the crash scene investigators....thats not the point.
Its the fact that it makes absolutely no sense..

Ignorance wheel??Trolling ??Tired of me??
Shame!!
Dont like it??Move on, but please dont think you have some moral or intellectual high ground here...your support of the official word indicates quite the contrary....!!


One quick question...

Take a look at the photo below....




Anything odd to you??

Remember your Fireball Lectures you presented a few days ago??

I was wondering (given your standing in the Fireball Analysis Community..) why it was that none, repeat NONE of this lawn RIGHT NEXT TO THE SUPPOSED IMPACT SITE is not damaged....??

Fireballs are hot things(the extent of my layman knowledge ).

37,500lbs.of jet fuel were calculated to have been on board the plane when it "crashed"..

Why, given your knowledge of fireballs, do you believe the long grass was not even scorched, let alone incinerated ???

How can 37,500lbs of fuel(5,500 gallons) not cause the grass to show any evidence of a fire??

Why, given the 5500 gallons of fuel exploding upon the planes impact, were no firefighters called out?
Wheres the fire trucks feverishly dousing fires??
You know...like at the Pentagon...!!

Heres a closer shot..from the Library of Congress of course....



See the long grass??

Fire retardant grass??

Yes gen....you may like putting people down as a way of distracting from the real issues, but , with respect....are you !@#$ing serious about all this??

Scream as loud as you like gen....but remember...

No matter how loud a noise you make about 9/11....it will never turn into the truth........it still remains just noise.

oh...and by the way...your silly fireball nonsense is, well, its on the back burner....!!

Love Benoni

From his parents basement....




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Simply stunning tezz, your answers are simply stunning.

Thanks. I knew I was good, but hey... if you want to take it further, that's fine by me.

I've yet to see any of your answers because you continually avoid providing any. Therefore, I can't type about the quality of them. You merely deflect, avoid and then speculate your unproven claims as though they are facts.


Originally posted by GenRadek
I see, so YOU need all the numbers in a neat little package, rather than doing a little bit of work so that maybe you can learn something yourself. I dont need to do the calculations because I dont need to have a physcis degree to understand how a freaking 757 @ 500 mph is going to displace a lot of dirt when it impacts nearly vertically into a dirt field.

Neutral readers to the thread will again note that GenRadek can not support his claim that a large part of the alleged Flight UA93 was buried in a crater.

He does not know how to do the calculations to prove that the plane displaced tons of dirt, only to then be buried by the tons of dirt.

GenRadek has reduced his argument to one of logical hypocrisy. He's made a claim but he wants me to do the calculations to prove it.


Originally posted by GenRadek
By God, I wish you were this nitpicky towards Jones and other conspiracy theorists with even weaker stories and wilder imaginations.

If your official government story was as solid as it should be, then you would not be on this forum trying to defend in the poor manner that you are.

You fail to prove your own claim and instead expect me to prove it for you.

Please, continue to post in this thread, as it shows your efforts to resort to damage control.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Sorry, doublepost... PC error

[edit on 15-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
For those that dont simply understand crashes, here is a sad story out of Iran. It does show some characteristics similar to the Flight 93 crash, especially the crash site and a striking crater.

news.yahoo.com...

Most fascinating! A large crater! With little bits of debris in it!
Here is the aircraft in question, a Tupelov-154M:
en.wikipedia.org...

Now this is a real tragedy, but it does show how a plane CAN create a crater and CAN be obliterated into small pieces. However, since this plane has just took off, and then crashed, it crash is a little more different than a nosedive @ 500mph. However the after affects are virtually identical in the crater. and LOOK! looking through the picture slideshow, they are using a loader to dig into the crater. Now why could that be?

Oh and be sure to scroll through the entire picture set. I also see grass unburned next to the crater. So I suppose by the CT version of reality, no plane crashed here either.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 



Fireballs are hot things(the extent of my layman knowledge ).

.....
Why, given your knowledge of fireballs, do you believe the long grass was not even scorched, let alone incinerated ???


How about paging through some of the photos from the crash in Iran?

Look for the raging fires, in the farm fields.

Look for the impact crater.

Remember the differences in the two crashes, but note certain similarities as well........



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



So I suppose by the CT version of reality, no plane crashed here either.


Not after the Iranian government finish replacing the Flight Recorders with fakes!!!

Sure hope they can find all of the Serial Numbers.....



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Unproven claims? Tezz, sticking your head into the sand everytime I try to explain something is NOT a good way to debate. You want to know how much was buried in the crater? Well gee, look at the report compiled by the investigators that were there, look at the size of the area of the immediate crash site with the majority of the debris, and then see how much was found around the site and later in the crater.

I'm betting you are still imagining that the plane is whole and intact in the crater and its just buried down there, whole. Thats not how it works tezz. This plane was obliterated on impact. The tiny pieces of the plane would naturally be buried in the hole as the force of the impact and explosion would throw up quite a bit of dirt in the air and bury the small pieces inside. Now, sadly, we have another plane crash with a crater most similar to the Flt 93 crater. And in the reports of the site, a majority of the plane is in itty bitty pieces, with a few larger pieces.







These are just a few pictures from the crash. Very sad to see, however, by god, the similarities are evident.

Before any one else says something, first off: I know this is a different aircraft. I understand that this crash was not the same as the 757 nosedive. This was a Tu-154 fully fueled, 15minutes after take off. The tail was on fire and it crashed into the ground, leaving behind this crater and debris strewn for 200 meters around the area. However since there are some here that believe planes dont leave behind little bitty pieces and craters after impact. However, cold hard reality strikes and shows it here.

Tezz, the investigators at Flt-93 didnt have a problem with the site the way it was. The firefighters, rescuers, recovery personnel, all know Flt 93 crashed there. But its easy for you and others to be computer "experts" and just by looking a a photo dismiss a plane crash. Well tezz, here is another plane crash to compare the Flight 93 to.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


benoni, I am sorry to see your lack of understanding even the most basic explanations that I provided you. Somehow I dont understand how you cannot fathom common sense and critical thinking. But i guess I can chalk this up to the state of the education systems really. Not your fault, I'm not blaming you at all no sir. Its just that rather than having peple expand their minds with sciences, meteorology, physics, well just the sciences and reading in schools, nowadays, people are more interested in youtube, video games, TV, partying, and everything else. I don't know you or your level of education or your lifestyle so I am not singling you out personally. I dont want to have my words twisted into something I didnt say.

Simply put, the fireball and mushroom cloud is what sucked the LIGHT debris up into the air, from which then the wind carried this light debris downwind. This is not complicated astrophysics, benoni. Any large explosion will suck up dirt, debris, etc into the mushroom cloud and have the winds carry it. I am sure you have heard about nuclear bomb tests, and the resultant "fallout"? Well if I were you I'd read up on mushroom clouds and fallout. It would hopefully clear up any misgivings you have about this. Sorry if I sounded pretentious but this kind of stuff I've learned about years ago and read about, and this is easy to understand from my standpoint. I understand there are many who have no clue about these things. I try to help explain it in order to deny ignorance. However when my attempts are met with scoffs, ridicule, and incredulity, how am I suppose to react? I feel as if I am talking to solid brickwalls or stubborn mules. And the part of "denying ignorance" is instead replaced with, "support ignorance."



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Unproven claims? Tezz, sticking your head into the sand everytime I try to explain something is NOT a good way to debate.

GenRadek, it is you who has stuck your head in the sand in an attempt to avoid your claim that a large part of the alleged Flight UA93 was buried in the crater.

You have continually told me that it is 'easy' to prove with equations. However, you have not done so. You can't do so. You don't know how to do it. You've backed away from trying to prove it.


Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm betting you are still imagining that the plane is whole and intact in the crater and its just buried down there, whole.

You would lose your bet, GenRadek. Although exponent claimed that there were fuselage sections dug out from the crater.


Originally posted by GenRadek
Thats not how it works tezz. This plane was obliterated on impact. The tiny pieces of the plane would naturally be buried in the hole as the force of the impact and explosion would throw up quite a bit of dirt in the air and bury the small pieces inside.

If the entire plane was obliterated, then why did exponent claim that there were fuselage sections dug from the crater?

You government story believers really need to organise a conference so that you all agree to preach the same fiction about the alleged Flight UA93.

Again with the forces, yet not a single calculation. This thread has proven to me that you can't do the force calculations.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
took your advice general and upon looking at the Iran crash photos i cannot believe you are comparing the two...!!
Your hilarious!!

Care to highlight the simalarities(other than a crater, which noone disputes is possible anyway...!!

Iran has lots of big pieces of wreckage...shanksville has none....

As for my education Sir, your prose is often flawed in your posts....

...but that would be derailing the more important issues Mein General



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Some one gave you a star for that post?!?

You claim the Iranian flight wreckage site has large pieces of wreckage (there are a few) and then for some unknown reason you had the gall to say that there were "none" in Shanksville???

Even the 'truthers' continually delight in showing the turbine engine (most likely the APU) that is uncovered in a hole, by the backhoe. It's a pretty big piece!

There were other pieces from UAL93, all over the interwebs when you look...even the 'truthers' point them out! You know, like the section of fuselage, with about three passenger windows??? Of course, 'truthers' can only sputter and whine that there is no "chain of custody" or "serial numbers" or "proof that the parts weren't planted" when confronted with evidence from UAL93....yet, they seem to have no problem believing the "evil" CNN or Iranian government when it comes to this latest Caspian Airlines crash....go figure!!!

AND, as always, recall the differences, and the simlarities.

UAL93, nearly straight down, engines at hight thrust, speed approaching 500 MPH.

Caspian Airlines? We don't know yet, but eyewitness claims, nearly straight down, tail on fire.

Reports the crew had radioed an engine fire...the engines of the Tu-154 are all tail-mounted. Engine on fire? Fire in tail! Fire destroys elevator controls? Horizontal stabilizer destroyed/damaged sufficiently by inflight fire? Guess what --- airplane will dive nose down into the ground. Difference, here? Speed. The Caspian Airlines jet was NOT flown intentionally into the ground!!!!!

edit:

Originally posted by benoni

Your hilarious!!


[edit on 16 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well first of all I dont know the exact mass of Flight 93. But if you want to, take the weight of a 757, find its mass, and multiply it by the acceleration of it going vertical @ 500mph. There are your calculation tezz, its not rocket science or brain surgery. I already can understand and its not hard to understand how much energy is in this sort of a situation. The best numbers I could find to help you are 77,000 kg at 504 knots.

Again I wish you were this nitpicky with the rest of the conspiracy crew as you are with such little things. Just because you cannot fathom or even think or even take an educated guess at the obvious forces involved of a 757 crash @ 500mph, tells me a lot about your line of thinking. But no, you need to have the exact numbers of every little thing, to confirm it, but have NO problem swallowing the garbage science of Jones and numerous other conspriacy sites that have more holes and more nonsense, without even batting an eye. And yet you delight in nitpicking apart miniscule details, and yet you dont even bother looking into the huge obvious mistakes of the conspiracy movement. And you little nitpicking is a great deflection from answering or learning about evidence that undercuts the conspiracy. Like now, demanding the 'numbers' to the forces of a plane crash that can create a crater. But then again you are having difficulty understanding the most basic thing (ie the obvious large force on impact) so you'd rather deflect it and demand the numbers, because only then will you believe, which I find highly unlikely anyways.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Originally posted by GenRadek

Well first of all I dont know the exact mass of Flight 93. But if you want to, take the weight of a 757, find its mass, and multiply it by the acceleration of it going vertical @ 500mph.


Here is the NTSB report, both AAL77 and UAL93. Page number 8 estimates the fuel remaining onboard UAL93 at about 37,500 pounds. This is based on the known dispatch fuel load, and the Flight Recorder information of fuel burns in flight.

www.ntsb.gov...

The OEW (operating empty weight) of a B757 is about 125,000 pounds...again, this exact figure could be obtained, for the airframe that was UAL93, but 125,000 is fairly typical, and could be a little on the light side, but that will not matter much....if we're 5% off either way.

SO....125,000 + 37,500 = 162,500 pounds. Now, add payload...the passengers and luggage and any cargo....say 10,000 pounds.

172,500 (78,409 kg) at impact is perfectly reasonable starting point.

(purely speculative, basing on 44 passengers and 44 pieces of luggage, at average industry weights. No idea how much cargo onboard. But for deniers, lighter weights will bolster their claims, eh??)

[edit on 16 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by benoni
 


You claim the Iranian flight wreckage site has large pieces of wreckage (there are a few) and then for some unknown reason you had the gall to say that there were "none" in Shanksville???

Even the 'truthers' continually delight in showing the turbine engine (most likely the APU) that is uncovered in a hole, by the backhoe. It's a pretty big piece!



You must mean that piece that was brought in and planted near the surface by the backhoe, and then staged and photo-oped next to the backhoe. Ahh yes; there it is.



Isn't that the same piece which you claimed spun its turbine parts 2 miles away into Indian Lake, before you high-tailed it out of Dodge weedwhacker? Isn't that the same piece you got all hypocritical over as you finessed your different only on 9-11 weedwhacker physics laws? Ahh yes; there it is.

post by SPreston

And there

post by SPreston

and there

post by SPreston



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Well first of all I dont know the exact mass of Flight 93. But if you want to, take the weight of a 757, find its mass, and multiply it by the acceleration of it going vertical @ 500mph. There are your calculation tezz, its not rocket science or brain surgery.

There we have it people - the best attempt that GenRadek has offered to prove that he understands the forces involved in the alleged crash of Flight UA93.

Note that his 'analysis' does not show how the tons of dirt were ejected, only to then end up reburying a large part of the plane in the crater...


Originally posted by GenRadek
I already can understand and its not hard to understand how much energy is in this sort of a situation. The best numbers I could find to help you are 77,000 kg at 504 knots.

No, GenRadek. You don't understand, as you have not demonstrated it.


Originally posted by GenRadek
Again I wish you were this nitpicky with the rest of the conspiracy crew as you are with such little things.

Why should I be nitpicky with conspiracies? None of the various conspiracies plunged the Middle East into a years-long war for profit, like the official government story did.

I don't particularly care if conspiracies are wrong - they're not being sold as 'the truth', like the official government story is.


Originally posted by GenRadek
Just because you cannot fathom or even think or even take an educated guess at the obvious forces involved of a 757 crash @ 500mph, tells me a lot about your line of thinking.

Wow, look at your accusations when you don't understand the forces involved. In every one of your posts, you have avoided showing the calculations to prove that tons of dirt were ejected and then settled to cover a large part of the plane.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
you know as well as i do weedy that the tintsy wintsy amount of debris found Is no more proof of a crash site than it is proof of it being planted by govt. cronies........

If other "truthers" you are aware of even "accept" the turbine in the back hoe, or the small other bits and pieces of supposed debris strewn across 8 miles from a plane supposedly crashing vertically into the ground(what a joke...), then that is up to them...
What bearing does that have on me??

Surely you are a supporter of free thinking???

As for the Iran crash...
Quite honestly, if i were you i would have dropped that one quick quick...

It weakens your argument, not strengthens it...

I am going out now, but on my retur i shall upload some photos to justify the above...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Skeptics, is your best evidence that most of Flight 93 buried itself is "trust us"?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, is your best evidence that most of Flight 93 buried itself is "trust us"?


Terrorist Apologist, what have you done to seek answers besides asking a hand full of intelligent folks on the internet what they think?

Why have you done nothing to get the answers to the questions you ask?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

I'll answer your questions as soon as you answer my question which I asked first.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 



Terrorist Apologist, what have you done to seek answers besides asking a hand full of intelligent folks on the internet what they think?



YAY!!!

You tell ‘em fox! I think ATH911 should follow in your footsteps and grab some lame anecdotes from Reader’s Digest to support his opinions. After all, real evidence doesn’t mean anything to you.

Ill let you go now so you and Dave can plan your next tantrums against us “Twoofas”.

BTW don’t forget to snap up your jammy bottoms!




top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join